Order VIII Rule 1 is directory, permitting delayed written statements in exceptional cases to advance substantial justice.

The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 10.12.2024 concerning the suit property, for a sale consideration of ₹13,75,000, against which ₹7,70,000 was allegedly paid as earnest money.

The petitioner-defendant was initially proceeded against ex parte after the trial court recorded service of summons and granted an interim injunction restraining alienation of the property.

On the petitioner’s application, the ex parte order was set aside on 24.09.2025 subject to costs of ₹500, and the matter was fixed for filing of the written statement.

Despite repeated opportunities on 23.10.2025, 20.11.2025, 18.12.2025, 05.02.2026, 20.03.2026 and 24.04.2026, the petitioner neither deposited the costs nor filed the written statement.

The trial court consequently struck off his defence on 10.07.2026 on the ground that the statutory period for filing the written statement had expired.

The petitioner challenged that order under Article 227 of the Constitution, attributing the delay principally to the negligence of his previous counsel and seeking one effective opportunity to file the written statement.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in striking off the petitioner-defendant’s defence for failure to file the written statement within the prescribed period despite repeated opportunities?

2. Whether, in the interests of justice, the High Court should permit the petitioner to file the written statement belatedly by exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?

3. If such permission were granted, what conditions should govern the petitioner’s opportunity to file the written statement and participate in the trial?

The Court exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to examine the correctness of the trial court’s order.

It applied Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerning the period for filing a written statement, while relying on Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab v. Kumar & Others, 2005 (4) RCR (Civil) 823, for the principle that the provision is procedural and ordinarily directory rather than an inflexible bar depriving the court of all power to accept a written statement filed beyond the prescribed period.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning, adopted by the High Court, is that procedural rules are intended to advance the cause of justice, not to defeat substantive rights; courts retain a residual discretion to prevent an inequitable result unless expressly prohibited by statute.

The exercise of that discretion may, however, be subject to appropriate terms, including payment of costs and compliance within a specified time.

The High Court found that the petitioner had been negligent in prosecuting the proceedings, noting that the explanation based on the previous counsel’s lapse did not fully inspire confidence.

Nevertheless, the Court held that permanently denying the petitioner an opportunity to file a written statement in a specific-performance suit would likely cause serious prejudice.

Applying the procedural and justice-oriented interpretation of Order VIII Rule 1 stated in Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab, the Court preferred adjudication on the merits over allowing the procedural default to conclusively determine the petitioner’s rights.

Since the petitioner had sought only one effective opportunity and the delay could be compensated through costs, the Court set aside the order striking off the defence, while imposing ₹15,000 as costs and prescribing a strict 15-day period for compliance.

The petitioner was granted one effective opportunity to file his written statement, subject to depositing ₹15,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association Lawyers’ Family Welfare Fund within 15 days from 26.08.2026 and producing the payment receipt before the trial court.

Upon filing the written statement after complying with the cost condition, the petitioner was also permitted to lead independent evidence in support of his defence.

If the costs were not deposited within the stipulated period, the High Court’s order would be ineffective and the trial court’s order dated 10.07.2026 would stand restored.